3rd QF England v Fiji - Stade de Marseille

First topic message reminder :

England: 15. Marcus Smith 14. Jonny May  13. Joe Marchant  12. Manu Tuilagi  11. Elliot Daly 10. Owen Farrell (c)9. Alex Mitchell 1. Ellis Genge 2. Jamie George 3. Dan Cole 4. Maro Itoje 5. Ollie Chessum 6. Courtney Lawes 7. Tom Curry 8. Ben Earl

Replacements: 16. Theo Dan  17. Joe Marler  18. Kyle Sinckler 19. George Martin  20. Billy Vunipola  21. Danny Care  22. George Ford  23. Ollie Lawrence  

Fiji: 1. Eroni Mawi 2. Tevita Ikanivere 3. Luke Tagi 4. Isoa Nasilasila 5. Albert Tuisue 6. Lekima Tagitagivalu 7. Levani Botia 8. Viliame Mata 9. Frank Lomani 10. Vilimoni Botitu 11. Semi Radradra 12. Josua Tuisova 13. Waisea Nayacalevu (c) 14. Vinaya Habosi 15. Ilaisa Droasese

Replacements: 16. Samuel Matavesi 17. Peni Ravai 18. Mesake Doge 19. Meli Derenalagi 20. Vilive Miramira 21. Simione Kuruvoli 22. Iosefo Masi 23. Sireli Maqala

Referee: Mathieu Raynal TMO: Ben Whitehouse

Assistant referees: Nic Berry (Australia) and Pierre Broussett (France)

Reactions to the England Twitter account:

Daly...ah yes the one thing we needed: more pointless kicking from the backline

Truly awful team, jonny May way past his best, Elliot Daly what’s he done to deserve a start over Arundell ? Marcus smith shoe horned at 15 to accommodate Farrell who I think restricts this england side and got to feel for Ollie Lawrence as well. Think Fiji steamroll this side

Borthwick has as much idea as the rest of us - no idea what his best team is

The only way Smith should be at 15 is with Steward and Arundell on both wings to support him

Didn't want Borthwick taking over; nothing's changed that view.  The likes of Daly, May, Marler and Cole have been great for us, but their time is done IMO. As is Farrell's. Ford far more attacking (as is Care) and not having Steward, or esp Arundell is shocking.

Farrell over Ford and Smith over Steward? May and Daly aren't our best 2 wingers. Not even having Steward or Ludlam on the bench is mad when both should be starting. Predicted an England victory, but now I've seen this I'm not so sure at all. Hope they prove me wrong!

Sigh, I really am speechless at that selection. It may, just, be good enough to see off Fiji, but its not going to be entertaining is it. Arundel, Lawrence, Steward, Care, Ford should be in there IMO.

I hear that guy Eddie's available after the competition - might be worth a try

Rugby Fan wrote:Reactions to the England Twitter account:

Daly...ah yes the one thing we needed: more pointless kicking from the backline

Truly awful team, jonny May way past his best, Elliot Daly what’s he done to deserve a start over Arundell ? Marcus smith shoe horned at 15 to accommodate Farrell who I think restricts this england side and got to feel for Ollie Lawrence as well. Think Fiji steamroll this side

Borthwick has as much idea as the rest of us - no idea what his best team is

The only way Smith should be at 15 is with Steward and Arundell on both wings to support him

Didn't want Borthwick taking over; nothing's changed that view.  The likes of Daly, May, Marler and Cole have been great for us, but their time is done IMO. As is Farrell's. Ford far more attacking (as is Care) and not having Steward, or esp Arundell is shocking.

Farrell over Ford and Smith over Steward? May and Daly aren't our best 2 wingers. Not even having Steward or Ludlam on the bench is mad when both should be starting. Predicted an England victory, but now I've seen this I'm not so sure at all. Hope they prove me wrong!

Sigh, I really am speechless at that selection. It may, just, be good enough to see off Fiji, but its not going to be entertaining is it. Arundel, Lawrence, Steward, Care, Ford should be in there IMO.

Yeah sorry. I spam the England twitter account too.

I'd have gone for Steward or Arundell ahead of May. Probably Steward if Radrada is playing as I think that'd be a good matchup. Radrada searches for contact and the offload ball in hand. So a 6'5" defender opposite him to try to wrap him up makes sense to me.

I'd also be starting Sinckler with Stuart on the bench against Fiji's big front rowers.

Like many I'd have gone with Ludlam over Billy in the 20 shirt.

Unlike many I'd have gone with Farrell and Smith as the means of getting two playmakers in. I think two playmakers are necessary against modern defences unless you have structures and cohesion like Ireland. Which England do not. I've long liked Ford-Farrell but with how physical the game now is we are seeing a shift back to having a massive ball carrier in the backline. England's only options close to that are in the centre. Whilst Marchant has been very good defensively at 13. I think that leaves Smith at 15 as the best option for a second playmaker. He's impressed there whilst Steward's form has slipped.

Ludlam has been your most consistent and best backrow for the last 12 months. Yet he's dropped because Billy was good once and they hope he might find form off the bench.

I think a little too much faith has been put in players who haven't performed recently but have the magic "big game experience" which counts for absolutely nothing.

carpet baboon wrote:Ludlam has been your most consistent and best backrow for the last 12 months. Yet he's dropped because Billy was good once and they hope he might find form off the bench.

This.

If this was England v Wales, I would be delighted not to see Ludlam and Arundell involved.

There's definitely a core of "not really required" players this RWC who probably feel a bit left out and wondering why they were brought along in the first place.

Step forward Max Malins, Ben Youngs, Dave Ribbans, Jack Walker, and Bevan Rodd.

Tackle bag holders and making up the numbers for teams against each other I guess. And in case of injury.

Out of those only Ribbans is hard done by. He should be in 23. As should Ludlum!

Mr Bounce wrote:There's definitely a core of "not really required" players this RWC who probably feel a bit left out and wondering why they were brought along in the first place.

Step forward Max Malins, Ben Youngs, Dave Ribbans, Jack Walker, and Bevan Rodd.

Tackle bag holders and making up the numbers for teams against each other I guess. And in case of injury.

Is this not often the case though? Most teams will only rotate for one game. Ireland didn't even do that. If you're going into your depth options in all positions then you've generally been unlucky with injuries. Most sides will have a few players who have only made one app in the easiest pool game where they rotated heavily. Maybe a bench app beyond that.

Singleton, Launchbury, Francis, Cokanasiga and McConnochie fell into that bracket last time around with a more condensed group stage and 31-man squads. Albeit the France game cancelled. From memory I don't think there were any injury worries that would've realistically seen those players come in for a pool game England were expected to go full noise for.

Fiji team announced. 10 in the starting XV also started in the Twickenham victory. Full line-up in the top post, or via the link.

https://www.rugbyworldcup.com/2023/news/877677/fiji-announce-squad-to-play-england

I don't necessarily see the point in picking someone if you have little intention of even letting them play.

But then I am not a coach.

Kind of surprised Arundel hasn't been started at 15 yet either, although this is not the game to do it

Mr Bounce wrote:There's definitely a core of "not really required" players this RWC who probably feel a bit left out and wondering why they were brought along in the first place.

Step forward Max Malins, Ben Youngs, Dave Ribbans, Jack Walker, and Bevan Rodd.

Tackle bag holders and making up the numbers for teams against each other I guess. And in case of injury.

Ribbans and Walker will probably be pretty happy just to have been part of a world cup squad. Neither would have had much in the way of international ambitions at the start of the year

Rodd may well see it as a "training wheels" experience. Marler is retiring after this RWC, so Rodd can expect to pick up the mantle. This is of course if Marler doesn't unretire again.

Youngs and Malins have had their opportunity and not done enough. Youngs in particular will probably recognise that Care deserves a shot, having missed out on his previous chances at the RWC through a freak training injury followed by the vagaries of Lancaster and Eddie's selection policies. (And in terms of impact by minutes played, Care is probably top of the tree for England players right now).

Mr Bounce wrote:I don't necessarily see the point in picking someone if you have little intention of even letting them play.

But then I am not a coach.

Without being funny you need squad players for the first choice to train against, they aren't just there for the matches. And the players in the wider squad will only ever be an injury or two away from starting.

There were some odd picks though. Guys considered not good enough suddenly starting. Picking 1 8 then not playing him.

There also feels an element of damned if you do, damned if you don't. An early criticism of Borthwick was picking old favourites, not considering recent performance and being unwilling to budge. People saying he was a weak coach and not brave enough. When Mitchell leapfrogs the two museum pieces, Earl earns the 8 shirt, Marchant gets past Slade as a 13 option and Smith is given a go at fullback, all on better recent performances than those being replaced, it's because he's confused and too weak to stick to his guns. Almost as if some have made up their mind and aren't contemplating budging. Which amusingly was their criticism of Borthwick to start.

Poorfour wrote:

Mr Bounce wrote:There's definitely a core of "not really required" players this RWC who probably feel a bit left out and wondering why they were brought along in the first place.

Step forward Max Malins, Ben Youngs, Dave Ribbans, Jack Walker, and Bevan Rodd.

Tackle bag holders and making up the numbers for teams against each other I guess. And in case of injury.

Ribbans and Walker will probably be pretty happy just to have been part of a world cup squad. Neither would have had much in the way of international ambitions at the start of the year

Rodd may well see it as a "training wheels" experience. Marler is retiring after this RWC, so Rodd can expect to pick up the mantle. This is of course if Marler doesn't unretire again.

Youngs and Malins have had their opportunity and not done enough. Youngs in particular will probably recognise that Care deserves a shot, having missed out on his previous chances at the RWC through a freak training injury followed by the vagaries of Lancaster and Eddie's selection policies. (And in terms of impact by minutes played, Care is probably top of the tree for England players right now).

Rodd needs to sort his scrummaging out...as Marler did at a young age. Otherwise he's not as "all action " a prop as Mako was in his prime and not a hard-core scrummaging prop like Marler...leaves him nowhere.

I get the side...from the squad we have.

Fiji don't kick so Stweard isn't required and everyone was calling for him to be dropped anyway..(SB can't win)
Let hope Fiji don't decide to drop bomb after bomb on Smith and launch multiple 2 legged missiles at him...

If they get through they will change the team for the next opponents..but I think that's as far as they could go.

Geordie wrote:I get the side...from the squad we have.

Fiji don't kick so Stweard isn't required and everyone was calling for him to be dropped anyway..(SB can't win)
Let hope Fiji don't decide to drop bomb after bomb on Smith and launch multiple 2 legged missiles at him...

If they get through they will change the team for the next opponents..but I think that's as far as they could go.

I will be shocked if Fiji don't send a few bombs towards Marcus Smith. He isn't a fullback and he doesn't even play one on tv (from a USA tv advert). I wouldn't be surprised if Daly moves back there in some situations.

king_carlos wrote:There also feels an element of damned if you do, damned if you don't. An early criticism of Borthwick was picking old favourites, not considering recent performance and being unwilling to budge. People saying he was a weak coach and not brave enough. When Mitchell leapfrogs the two museum pieces, Earl earns the 8 shirt, Marchant gets past Slade as a 13 option and Smith is given a go at fullback, all on better recent performances than those being replaced, it's because he's confused and too weak to stick to his guns. Almost as if some have made up their mind and aren't contemplating budging. Which amusingly was their criticism of Borthwick to start.

Hes definitely not a brave coach. Its all about trying to reduce risk as much as possible and rely on the other teams mistakes to create. But suddenly bad selections are now a tick when he realises late in the day he's made errors with his squad. But there's this promise he's going to win 9 six nations etc in the next 10 years yeah?!

doctor_grey wrote:

Geordie wrote:I get the side...from the squad we have.

Fiji don't kick so Stweard isn't required and everyone was calling for him to be dropped anyway..(SB can't win)
Let hope Fiji don't decide to drop bomb after bomb on Smith and launch multiple 2 legged missiles at him...

If they get through they will change the team for the next opponents..but I think that's as far as they could go.

I will be shocked if Fiji don't send a few bombs towards Marcus Smith.  He isn't a fullback and he doesn't even play one on tv (from a USA tv advert).  I wouldn't be surprised if Daly moves back there in some situations.  

Ha. Can you imagine if Smith is peppered and doesn't cope, he's never really won much in the air when it's been called for, and the answer is elliot daly!

I do think we'll beat Fiji as we would most times but par is then reached and I just can't see how we beat either team we could face in the semi.
So liking at the positives from the tournament, Chessums been good and solidifies his partnership with Itoje. I suppose Dan has made some inroads at hooker. Perhaps it's a tick for Smith if he comes through at full back but seems more of a waste than to play him at fly half. I'm then struggling and it's more hope that Borthwick starts to introduce more players from outside the squad. Just seems a bit of a waste of 2 tournaments under him so far.

Earl been a positive.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I do think we'll beat Fiji as we would most times but par is then reached and I just can't see how we beat either team we could face in the semi.
So liking at the positives from the tournament, Chessums been good and solidifies his partnership with Itoje. I suppose Dan has made some inroads at hooker. Perhaps it's a tick for Smith if he comes through at full back but seems more of a waste than to play him at fly half. I'm then struggling and it's more hope that Borthwick starts to introduce more players from outside the squad. Just seems a bit of a waste of 2 tournaments under him so far.

Imagine the resource rich might of England losibg to Fiji, an isle in the South Pacific. GDP of 3.3 trillion vs 4.9 billion.

GDP somewhat irrelevant and anyway England have already lost to them.

mountain man wrote:Earl been a positive.

Can't ever see him pushing his way into the side though at any position though. A really good bench option but he's not an 8 and surely Borthwick (or hopefully his replacement) will go and pick a proper player there. Never going to get in at 7 so that leaves 6. I'd prefer him to Lawes there but despite what Woodward says I do think he's a more natural 7 and there are other options that I'd prefer at blindside. He's had a relatively good world cup though yes.

Taylorman wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I do think we'll beat Fiji as we would most times but par is then reached and I just can't see how we beat either team we could face in the semi.
So liking at the positives from the tournament, Chessums been good and solidifies his partnership with Itoje. I suppose Dan has made some inroads at hooker. Perhaps it's a tick for Smith if he comes through at full back but seems more of a waste than to play him at fly half. I'm then struggling and it's more hope that Borthwick starts to introduce more players from outside the squad. Just seems a bit of a waste of 2 tournaments under him so far.

Imagine the resource rich might of England losibg to Fiji, an isle in the South Pacific. GDP of 3.3 trillion vs 4.9 billion.

We don't have to imagine as Borthwick has already brought us that.

Earl 7 is fine by me. I know you prefer Curry though.

Yeah Curry for me is the stand out England player we have. Earl is a good player but a bit like Ludlam is never going to really excel at this level. They'll both do solid jobs. I'd probably have Ludlam if I had to choose from them two though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:There also feels an element of damned if you do, damned if you don't. An early criticism of Borthwick was picking old favourites, not considering recent performance and being unwilling to budge. People saying he was a weak coach and not brave enough. When Mitchell leapfrogs the two museum pieces, Earl earns the 8 shirt, Marchant gets past Slade as a 13 option and Smith is given a go at fullback, all on better recent performances than those being replaced, it's because he's confused and too weak to stick to his guns. Almost as if some have made up their mind and aren't contemplating budging. Which amusingly was their criticism of Borthwick to start.

Hes definitely not a brave coach. Its all about trying to reduce risk as much as possible and rely on the other teams mistakes to create. But suddenly bad selections are now a tick when he realises late in the day he's made errors with his squad. But there's this promise he's going to win 9 six nations etc in the next 10 years yeah?!

You keep throwing this term around but it doesn't really mean anything....

Curry has hardly excelled this RWC though seeing as he not played much plus I don't think he's as good as was 2 years or so ago. Like several others.
I disagree about Earl and Ludlum, both definitely Int class players and Id be happy to see then next several years in Eng team

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah Curry for me is the stand out England player we have. Earl is a good player but a bit like Ludlam is never going to really excel at this level. They'll both do solid jobs. I'd probably have Ludlam if I had to choose from them two though.

Not fir quite a long time now for England though..Curry has bene as annoynmous as Itoje

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:There also feels an element of damned if you do, damned if you don't. An early criticism of Borthwick was picking old favourites, not considering recent performance and being unwilling to budge. People saying he was a weak coach and not brave enough. When Mitchell leapfrogs the two museum pieces, Earl earns the 8 shirt, Marchant gets past Slade as a 13 option and Smith is given a go at fullback, all on better recent performances than those being replaced, it's because he's confused and too weak to stick to his guns. Almost as if some have made up their mind and aren't contemplating budging. Which amusingly was their criticism of Borthwick to start.

Hes definitely not a brave coach. Its all about trying to reduce risk as much as possible and rely on the other teams mistakes to create. But suddenly bad selections are now a tick when he realises late in the day he's made errors with his squad. But there's this promise he's going to win 9 six nations etc in the next 10 years yeah?!

You keep throwing this term around but it doesn't really mean anything....

What I mean by it is that is that he sets his team up tactics wise to reduce the chance of conceding chances over creating them. On the face of it the change at full back is a promising one as Smith ball in hand is certainly a more dangerous player than Steward in most instances but I will be surprised if we often see it as I expect to see lots of garry owens and grabbers the second we get to fijis 22.

mountain man wrote:Curry has hardly excelled this RWC though seeing as he not played much plus I don't think he's as good as was 2 years or so ago. Like several others.
I disagree about Earl and Ludlum, both definitely Int class players and Id be happy to see then next several years in Eng team

For me no one has excelled. The best performance was Ford vs argentina but even then it was one painted by the situation of playing with 14. His kicking was good not as great as made out. The 3 drops were glorious. But he didn't create anything really, as I said that's against playing with a man down. He's played miles better than that. After that some decent to good things but nothing special. I just don't see anyone playing to their potential anywhere in this team.

And yes both Earl and Ludlam can play at this level, but don't think anything more than a good player here. Sort of a very slight step down from someone lime Robshaw.

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah Curry for me is the stand out England player we have. Earl is a good player but a bit like Ludlam is never going to really excel at this level. They'll both do solid jobs. I'd probably have Ludlam if I had to choose from them two though.

Not fir quite a long time now for England though..Curry has bene as annoynmous as Itoje

Neither are playing to their best form that's certainly true. Still normally the best 2 forwards on the pitch for us though such is their peak.

Well that's one thing we can agree on in that no player has excelled this RWC for Eng. So far possibly Chessum best player(?) but most been average at best.

Your only as good as your last few performances...and they y haven't performed for a long time.

Itoje has improved this world Cup but still a long way from his best.
Hence why I say his time nearly up in the squad once the mich bigger kids get established in the next year or so.

Itoje, Farrell, Curry, Billy, Manu, May all a long way off best. Itoje and Curry have time on side though. Itoje is getting better but not as influential on games as he used to be.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:There also feels an element of damned if you do, damned if you don't. An early criticism of Borthwick was picking old favourites, not considering recent performance and being unwilling to budge. People saying he was a weak coach and not brave enough. When Mitchell leapfrogs the two museum pieces, Earl earns the 8 shirt, Marchant gets past Slade as a 13 option and Smith is given a go at fullback, all on better recent performances than those being replaced, it's because he's confused and too weak to stick to his guns. Almost as if some have made up their mind and aren't contemplating budging. Which amusingly was their criticism of Borthwick to start.

Hes definitely not a brave coach. Its all about trying to reduce risk as much as possible and rely on the other teams mistakes to create. But suddenly bad selections are now a tick when he realises late in the day he's made errors with his squad. But there's this promise he's going to win 9 six nations etc in the next 10 years yeah?!

You keep throwing this term around but it doesn't really mean anything....

What I mean by it is that is that he sets his team up tactics wise to reduce the chance of conceding chances over creating them. On the face of it the change at full back is a promising one as Smith ball in hand is certainly a more dangerous player than Steward in most instances but I will be surprised if we often see it as I expect to see lots of garry owens and grabbers the second we get to fijis 22.

Maybe he's set his stall out for this world Cup as damage limitation was the best fit. The old guard are too old or not good enough anymore ...but the new kids are untried and tested yet. It could have been a massacre if we'd picked all the 'potential ' coming through.

He picked who he thought would be best for this tournament...but he will have no choice post WC as half this squad potentially will be gone.

Geordie wrote:Your only as good as your last few performances...and they y haven't performed for a long time.

Itoje has improved this world Cup but still a long way from his best.
Hence why I say his time nearly up in the squad once the mich bigger kids get established in the next year or so.

That's fine if you view it that way, no one can keep their place indefinitely. And particularly if the coaches thinks they can't manage them to get their better form back the best option could be to move on. That would include the entire squad!

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:There also feels an element of damned if you do, damned if you don't. An early criticism of Borthwick was picking old favourites, not considering recent performance and being unwilling to budge. People saying he was a weak coach and not brave enough. When Mitchell leapfrogs the two museum pieces, Earl earns the 8 shirt, Marchant gets past Slade as a 13 option and Smith is given a go at fullback, all on better recent performances than those being replaced, it's because he's confused and too weak to stick to his guns. Almost as if some have made up their mind and aren't contemplating budging. Which amusingly was their criticism of Borthwick to start.

Hes definitely not a brave coach. Its all about trying to reduce risk as much as possible and rely on the other teams mistakes to create. But suddenly bad selections are now a tick when he realises late in the day he's made errors with his squad. But there's this promise he's going to win 9 six nations etc in the next 10 years yeah?!

You keep throwing this term around but it doesn't really mean anything....

What I mean by it is that is that he sets his team up tactics wise to reduce the chance of conceding chances over creating them. On the face of it the change at full back is a promising one as Smith ball in hand is certainly a more dangerous player than Steward in most instances but I will be surprised if we often see it as I expect to see lots of garry owens and grabbers the second we get to fijis 22.

Maybe he's set his stall out for this world Cup as damage limitation was the best fit. The old guard are too old or not   good enough anymore ...but the new kids are untried and tested yet. It could have been a massacre if we'd picked all the 'potential ' coming through.

He picked who he thought would be best for this tournament...but he will have no choice post WC as half this squad potentially will be gone.

Absolutely fine. I just wanted to make clear what I mean when I say he lacks bravery. No one has to agree with that but think if its causing confusion it's best I spell it out.

As for the second bit we'll quite. Some of the squad may retire etc but not sure it will be more than 2 or 3. And then we're left with going into the 6Ns with the same question on selection. And with the tactics that I'm not sure will ever change.

mountain man wrote:Itoje, Farrell, Curry, Billy, Manu, May all a long way off best. Itoje and Curry have time on side though. Itoje is getting better but not as influential on games as he used to be.

My problem with itoje is down to size. Now I know he has put some sublime performances in over the years...but he's 6'5 and struggling to hit 18 stone. He does the job a good blind side flanker does. You need to balance him with a massive guy...Kruis was a good foil and even another at flanker.

Now I know KC will argue against me...but when you have most opposition playing two huge guys, over the duration of a game that will take its toll. Now add in Itojes lack of form for a while now and it's a big problem.

It's why I believe we have already found his replacement in Ollie Chessum...athletic, powerful looosehead lock 6'8 18.5 stone...now we just need to find his partner for rhe tight head lock.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:There also feels an element of damned if you do, damned if you don't. An early criticism of Borthwick was picking old favourites, not considering recent performance and being unwilling to budge. People saying he was a weak coach and not brave enough. When Mitchell leapfrogs the two museum pieces, Earl earns the 8 shirt, Marchant gets past Slade as a 13 option and Smith is given a go at fullback, all on better recent performances than those being replaced, it's because he's confused and too weak to stick to his guns. Almost as if some have made up their mind and aren't contemplating budging. Which amusingly was their criticism of Borthwick to start.

Hes definitely not a brave coach. Its all about trying to reduce risk as much as possible and rely on the other teams mistakes to create. But suddenly bad selections are now a tick when he realises late in the day he's made errors with his squad. But there's this promise he's going to win 9 six nations etc in the next 10 years yeah?!

You keep throwing this term around but it doesn't really mean anything....

What I mean by it is that is that he sets his team up tactics wise to reduce the chance of conceding chances over creating them. On the face of it the change at full back is a promising one as Smith ball in hand is certainly a more dangerous player than Steward in most instances but I will be surprised if we often see it as I expect to see lots of garry owens and grabbers the second we get to fijis 22.

Maybe he's set his stall out for this world Cup as damage limitation was the best fit. The old guard are too old or not   good enough anymore ...but the new kids are untried and tested yet. It could have been a massacre if we'd picked all the 'potential ' coming through.

He picked who he thought would be best for this tournament...but he will have no choice post WC as half this squad potentially will be gone.

Absolutely fine. I just wanted to make clear what I mean when I say he lacks bravery. No one has to agree with that but think if its causing confusion it's best I spell it out.

As for the second bit we'll quite. Some of the squad may retire etc but not sure it will be more than 2 or 3. And then we're left with going into the 6Ns with the same question on selection. And with the tactics that I'm not sure will ever change.

OK that's clear...not sure thats Bravery but I understand what your meaning.

I think we might be surprised how many are ejected and retire. I'm think quite a huge number...

I agree on Itoje, bit like Lawes when he played lock too light really these days. England really need a couple of 6'7" 20 stone brutes. Maybe Chessum bros in a year or so.

mountain man wrote:I agree on Itoje, bit like Lawes when he played lock too light really these days. England really need a couple of 6'7" 20 stone brutes. Maybe Chessum bros in a year or so.

Well there's a number of 6'8 plus giants coming through so let's see how they go this season..might give us an idea who could step up...

Play chessum and jonny Hill then. Sorted.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:There also feels an element of damned if you do, damned if you don't. An early criticism of Borthwick was picking old favourites, not considering recent performance and being unwilling to budge. People saying he was a weak coach and not brave enough. When Mitchell leapfrogs the two museum pieces, Earl earns the 8 shirt, Marchant gets past Slade as a 13 option and Smith is given a go at fullback, all on better recent performances than those being replaced, it's because he's confused and too weak to stick to his guns. Almost as if some have made up their mind and aren't contemplating budging. Which amusingly was their criticism of Borthwick to start.

Hes definitely not a brave coach. Its all about trying to reduce risk as much as possible and rely on the other teams mistakes to create. But suddenly bad selections are now a tick when he realises late in the day he's made errors with his squad. But there's this promise he's going to win 9 six nations etc in the next 10 years yeah?!

The post about him winning 9 Six Nations titles also included the suggestion that Borthwick would discover a renewable energy source to save the Earth from oblivion. Which I'd hoped would be extreme enough to clarify it as not being serious.

You've taken the view that regardless of whether a coach is successful he will be the wrong choice and a failure. Any change henceforth will be meaningless. He is already a guaranteed failure. Then you act like posters viewing his short tenure with any modicum of balance are the ones being irrational. Which is hilarious to me.

The solving climate change thing is just if this, then what. As seen since The Modest Proposal in the 1700s. If the British aristocracy don't care about the poor then could poor people sell their babies to the rich as food to ease their poverty. Take something silly and drag it to the extreme to highlight it's silliness. Hence 7.5 stood outside Broadcasting House waving a banner saying, "Steve's still a useless c**t", at the bloke that saved the world because he's still refusing to budge.

Geordie's right. The bravery thing is nonsense. If Razor, or another coach you didn't instantly despise for completely rational reasons, was in post and someone made that sort of argument then you'd be one of the first to call it out for the nonsense it is. It's the sort of thing SCW or Dallagio would come out with. The best teams in international rugby have always built game plans that allow them minimise risk and errors, then build an attack from that.

One of Ireland's biggest attacking weapons is using first phase moves straight off kick return. Boot the ball away, when it gets booted back their number 8 runs straight into the defence in the middle of the field, giving them both sides of the pitch to attack. Then immediately run a set move. It's brilliance is that you're less likely to get the platform disrupted than at scrum or lineout. They've created a lower risk means of running set-piece moves by removing the set-piece. It's brilliant attacking play. It comes from risk mitigation.

Geordie wrote:

mountain man wrote:I agree on Itoje, bit like Lawes when he played lock too light really these days. England really need a couple of 6'7" 20 stone brutes. Maybe Chessum bros in a year or so.

Well there's a number of 6'8 plus giants coming through so let's see how they go this season..might give us an idea who could step up...

Has rugby as a whole not moved away from the obsession with massive, 20 stone second rows? Bierne is the same size as Itoje and brilliant. Woki is smaller. Flament the same size as O Chessum, who is a big guy but not notably for the modern game. I rate Chessum very highly but don't think he's more powerful than Itoje.

Generally those massive locks struggle in the international game now as it's so quick. Skelton is still to really convert his club performances to internationals. Lavanini does a job for Argentina but isn't a world beater. Willemse is very useful for France as their back row is tall (lineout options to mitigate Willemse not jumping) and mobile. Even then he seemed to be overtaken by Woki and Flament prior to injury. Kote Mikautadze does a similar job for Georgia but isn't world class. That's pretty much it for those brutish 20 stone locks that I can think of.

Etzebeth is the anomaly rather than the norm. He's an absolute freak in contact that is also a world class lineout jumper and has the work rate of most flankers. There's one of him in the game for a reason though. Even as a Tigers and England fan I've argued that Etzebeth's best is better than Martin Johnson and should get him in an all time XV alongside John Eales though. Fair to say I'm a big fan. We aren't suddenly going to have two Etzebeth's in the boiler room, as fun as it would be.

Lood and Snyman are big but I wouldn't say their strengths come from brute force. Lood is a one man lineout that's quick in the loose. Snyman is really good in the lineout and a terrific carrier with a strong offloading game. The way he regularly hits two defenders then gets the ball away is endlessly entertaining to me. I wouldn't call it brute force though.

It feels the international game has moved away from that. Yet it's often what England fans yearn for when the team isn't doing well. I've posted similar things a few times but there's just something curious in that to me.

king_carlos wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:There also feels an element of damned if you do, damned if you don't. An early criticism of Borthwick was picking old favourites, not considering recent performance and being unwilling to budge. People saying he was a weak coach and not brave enough. When Mitchell leapfrogs the two museum pieces, Earl earns the 8 shirt, Marchant gets past Slade as a 13 option and Smith is given a go at fullback, all on better recent performances than those being replaced, it's because he's confused and too weak to stick to his guns. Almost as if some have made up their mind and aren't contemplating budging. Which amusingly was their criticism of Borthwick to start.

Hes definitely not a brave coach. Its all about trying to reduce risk as much as possible and rely on the other teams mistakes to create. But suddenly bad selections are now a tick when he realises late in the day he's made errors with his squad. But there's this promise he's going to win 9 six nations etc in the next 10 years yeah?!

The post about him winning 9 Six Nations titles also included the suggestion that Borthwick would discover a renewable energy source to save the Earth from oblivion. Which I'd hoped would be extreme enough to clarify it as not being serious.

You've taken the view that regardless of whether a coach is successful he will be the wrong choice and a failure. Any change henceforth will be meaningless. He is already a guaranteed failure. Then you act like posters viewing his short tenure with any modicum of balance are the ones being irrational. Which is hilarious to me.

The solving climate change thing is just if this, then what. As seen since The Modest Proposal in the 1700s. If the British aristocracy don't care about the poor then could poor people sell their babies to the rich as food to ease their poverty. Take something silly and drag it to the extreme to highlight it's silliness. Hence 7.5 stood outside Broadcasting House waving a banner saying, "Steve's still a useless c**t", at the bloke that saved the world because he's still refusing to budge.

Geordie's right. The bravery thing is nonsense. If Razor, or another coach you didn't instantly despise for completely rational reasons, was in post and someone made that sort of argument then you'd be one of the first to call it out for the nonsense it is. It's the sort of thing SCW or Dallagio would come out with. The best teams in international rugby have always built game plans that allow them minimise risk and errors, then build an attack from that.

One of Ireland's biggest attacking weapons is using first phase moves straight off kick return. Boot the ball away, when it gets booted back their number 8 runs straight into the defence in the middle of the field, giving them both sides of the pitch to attack. Then immediately run a set move. It's brilliance is that you're less likely to get the platform disrupted than at scrum or lineout. They've created a lower risk means of running set-piece moves by removing the set-piece. It's brilliant attacking play. It comes from risk mitigation.

I'm aware it was a mickey take. I thought he was a bad pick and he's does nothing to dissuade me as yet. It's gone the other way I actually thought he'd be slightly better than he's turning out to be! It's just so boring as well. I'm far from alone in that assessment.

Anyway we're pretty much set with him now by the sound of it. The rfu have tied him and his team into a long expensive contract and the only thing that will change that is plummeting Twickenham attendances. Not sure were going to see that even if its been a struggle to sell this quarter final.

Anyway positivity king. What's your plus points from the end of Eddie's reign up to now?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Play chessum and jonny Hill then. Sorted.

Johnny Hill is not good enough